Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Obama Pledges Gun Control in SOTUWith Or Without Congress
One year after Newtown, President Obama brought up gun control again in the SOTU speech. Last year he urged congress to act after the Newtown tragedy, just two months prior to the 2013 SOTU, however the Senate failed to pass any gun legislation. Opponents including the NRA spear headed a campaign to oppose any gun safety law implementation. President Obama said in this latest SOTU address, "Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals
from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police
officers all over this country who say 'we are not afraid,' and I intend
to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies
from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls,
or schools like Sandy Hook." Even though the President only mentioned gun control once in his current address, it is thought perhaps he understands congress will not act on this. It appears he will use his executive action authority. Obama can not effect the law more than making the background check procedure more strenuous and thorough, including a focus on not selling firearms to the mentally ill. It should be noted that after the 2013 SOTU address 23 executive actions were taken to strengthen gun control laws.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-health-
ReplyDeletecare-myths-we-live-by/2014/02/06/8a74d7b2-8f66-11e3-84e1-
27626c5ef5fb_story.html?tid=pm_pop
Being a nurse I found this article from 'The Washington Post' interesting. Alot
of the information provided are issues that we observe in the hospital setting.
We are often frustrated by the same circumstances that are mentioned in this
article. The commentary touches on, but does not explain in depth, why these
discrepancies between fact and fiction may exist.
The author, Charles Krauthammer, does have medical background. Mr.
Krauthammer practiced medicine for three years as a resident and
progressed as a chief resident in psychiatry at Massachusetts General
Hospital in the 1980s. It is interesting how his background in medicine and
current status as a political commentator (on Fox news) mesh and co-exist.
He was also a speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondate and helped
direct planning in psychiatric research for the Carter administration.
I found this article to raise some interesting questions, but it left me with many
more questions and not alot of answers.
Below I have addressed several of the topics mentioned in Mr. Krauthammer's
editorial entitled, "The health-care myths we live by".
On the issue of vitamin supplements and the ongoing debate on whether they
are useful, useless or harmful continues, as stated in the article. Why might
this issue continue to baffle? The issue exists because the studies and
experiments used to determine situations such as these (supplement effects)
are reported in lag time. A delayed reaction if you will. Many of the studies and
research that are conducted take an extremely long period of time to complete
and are done in a variety of different environments, with different populations,
and under varying circumstances. Thus, since the outcomes of the research
become available at different times (depending on the technology available at
the specific time the studies were conducted) and invariably are different. The
outcomes of the research , since many of the studies conducted are not the
same - but are testing essentially the same or nearly the same hypothesis - are
going to be in conflict. It is similar to attempting to do research on the internet
- you are going to find claims against and for an argument - but this gets an
indivdual no closer to the truth, unfortunately. This is why some studies for
supplements (and depending on who is conducting the research and whether
they are wanting a positive or negative outcome) are going to be in favor of
them and others against them. You also have outdated information that some
portion of the population has latched on to, while updated information is
being circulated as well. As the article mentions, antioxidants have long been
touted to be beneficial, while new research may be suggesting that to be
untrue or that they may even be harmful - it will take a certain amount of time
for that information to circulate and become common knowledge.
In the medical community, generally, procedures are continued to be viewed
ReplyDeleteas a staple and actively practiced until concrete evidence is available to
challenge it. As in the case of tonsillectomies, this was a widely practiced
procedure - then when the research came back that it was unnecessary, for
the most part, the routine procedure was, in most cases, abruptly stopped. In
the medical community, issues are often based on scientific fact. The medical
community is unable to waver back and forth on an issue, it must come
together, examine the evidence, and make a concrete decision and stick by it.
The medical community actually has to ACT ON the said research - not just
decide to be for or against it - and to actually believe in it and take an active
stance on it.
The author's suggestion that, "This is not to indict, but simply to advocate for
caution grounded in humility" is fine for the average person, but what if you
are a nurse or doctor having to assimilate fact from, literally, "fact", and
actively practice and incorporate the information into your profession?
Humility is not really the issue - it's an issue of attempting to provide the most
accurate data available for the medical community to make the best decisions
possible for it's patients. Often if a medical provider is not confident in the
information that is being provided to patients, the patients become frustrated
and are incapable of making individual health decisions - in some cases
waiting to make a decision can be lethal and no action is the same as making
a decision and sometimes it can be the wrong one.
The issue the article brings up a widely heated debate surrounding ER visits
for the uninsured. We see this very frequently at the particular facility I am
employed by. What the author fails to mention are possible reasons for this
other than "perhaps they still preferred the immediacy of the ER to waiting for
an office appointment with a physician." I believe the problem is more indepth.
Attempts to insure and place the patients on medicaid may work for a fraction
of the population - but let us analyze the population. The particular
assemblage in question is made up of those at the lower end of the income
bracket. Generally these people are made up of people who are uneducated
or under-educated, when the government wants to suddenly insure and place
people on medicaid there is education that needs to go along with this
change? Education needs to be provided at a level that ensures
understanding for this population - otherwise the said population is more
confused than ever. When statistics are reflecting that ER visits have actually
gone up since insuring a percentage of this population, is it being taken into
account the rise and fall of unemployment? A habit is often created after a
certain period of time and continued practice of a new behavior - has there
been time allowed for it to become a habit to no longer frequent the ER and
instead utilize insurance and making physician appointments? There would
be people continually on either end of the spectrum utilizing insurance - those
newly placed and those who obtained insured status months or even years
from the time the study was conducted that states "...in a randomized study,
Oregon recently found that when the uninsured were put on Medicaid, they
increased their ER usage by 40 percent." Oregon does not constitute the
entire nation. It seems apparent the author is attempting to sway his target
audience (those against insuring the unisured and those who are undecided)
that medicaid and insuring those previously uninsured is not a solution and
has not been effective in reducing ER usage for this portion of the population.
On the issue of the federal government forcing doctors to convert to
ReplyDeleteelectronic health records and that this will "..save zillions" - this is true and
false - and in writing this article I'm not sure where the author came up with
"zillions" as a quotable, factual or believable figure. Employing "scribes", as
they are called, and as one can imagine (at a mediocre salary at best) is far
less expensive, in the long run, than having a highly-educated and well paid
MD performing the mindless task of data-entry. Are "scribes" having to be
employed due to EHS mandates? Yes, and at a cost, but far less than the
alternative.
Over-all I would state that the view points of the author leave much to be
desired. I would have appreciated a more indepth article, especially given the
author's background in medicine. I believe this article was to reinforce right-
wing perceptions that insuring the uninsured, preventative health-care, and
mandated reforms are all unnecessary and to persuade those undecided to
the right.